Like with Harry Potter, someone is posting spoilers on the web
I want to see the mathematical proofs that God exists. It sounds from reading these course descriptions that there are ones. Or perhaps those are left as exercises for the students.
PRE-CALCULUS
Students will examine the nature of God as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that God was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will result in a greater appreciation of God and His works in creation. Students who have successfully completed Geometry and Algebra 2 will develop skills in advanced algebra, analytic geometry, and trigonometry. The students will focus on the mathematics concepts that connect the thoughts of the mind with the realities of the universe, experiencing the creative power and order of God.
But it’s the econ class (bottom of page) that sounds the most interesting. I didn’t realize the concepts of capitalism and socialism and communism were known at the time the Bible was written. The things you can learn…
ECONOMICS/FREE ENTERPRISE
TWELFTH GRADEStudents will evaluate the past and learn from its lessons (I Corinthians 10:11), and become effectual Christians who understand “the times” (I Chronicles 12:32). Students will gain an understanding of the workings of economic systems, being able to identify the strengths and weaknesses inherent in capitalism (Deuteronomy 8, 15, 28, Leviticus 25), and the reasons for its superiority to the models of communism and socialism (Ezekiel 46:18).
Now where are those classes that teach critical thinking? I can’t seem to find them.
Oh yah, Also according to the wiki article an agnostic is also a type of athiest.
>>You seem to want to remain in your little world where everything
>>is a religion (collecting stamps, following sports, jogging, not
>>believing in things, believing in things…)
No, Tommie, very FEW things are religions. Atheism just happens to be one of the few things that is.
I know it tarnishes your self-image as a dangerous, naughty, counter-cultural rebel-without-a-god, but that’s just tfb.
To paraphrase the Monkees, you’re a believer yeah yeah yeah yeah. Just deal with it.
@63
One of the ways I know I have won an argument is when the other person becomes flipant and absurd.
Thankyou, I haven’t enjoyed a god godbag smack down in a while.
Cheers.
>>One of the ways I know I have won an argument ..
Believe, my son. And, at least for you, it shall be so. With your deeply-held religio-atheistic faith, you should have no trouble believing.
>>One of the ways I know I have won an argument is when
>>the other person becomes flipant and absurd.
And one of the ways I know I’m winning is when the other person stops talking about the substance of the argument, and resorts to content-free ad hominem “insults”.
Keep running, my son. You’re far behind right now, but you still have the opportunity to get closer, if not to catch up.
#61 – MM,
I have looked it up many times. I am an atheist. I am also an antitheist. It is you that are unaware of the many flavors of atheism.
#62 – GregA,
Apatheist is one description of me. However, I do not believe in god for a variety of reasons. Apatheism does not cover all of them.
#63 – MM – again,
You don’t get to define words for yourself and then hurl them at people. You must accept the existing definitions. You seem to fail to understand that not everyone requires a belief structure such as your own. Anyway, here’s a link to the wiki page. Please do not make further assertions without at least reading the damn thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
Here’s a bunch of dictionary definitions too. Please note that in all dictionaries cited, there is at least one definition that simply states disbelief, rather than active belief.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
In short, you really just happen to be completely wrong on this subject.
#65
By your reckoning, if you don’t “believe” that purple leprechauns, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, hobbits, or plaid flying dragons exist, then you are a member a religion. That means everyone is a member of an infinite number of religions whose constituents don’t believe (fill-in an entity) exists.
As Misanthropic Scott in #69 stated, you are not permitted to simply redefine words as you see fit. By every definition found, including ones you have provided, atheism is not a religion. What is clear is that most us are able to “deal” with reality and you are not.
#70 – Thomas,
Very well said. But, let’s not belittle people for having trouble dealing with big issues like their own mortality. It’s very hard for some people to come to terms with the fact that, upon their own death, there is simply nothing more.
I don’t fear death personally. I fear worse than death. Living in pain with air being pumped through the meat that was once me scares the living shit out of me. If I feared death as much as I fear almost but not quite death, maybe I’d need religion too.
For those of us that can accept this little tidbit, life becomes so much more precious precisely because when it’s over, it’s really over. For those that can accept that there is no greater meaning to our lives than that which we assign to our lives, some of us feel a great uplifting feeling of freedom.
However, there is no single right way to live one’s life. Mister Mustard is entitled to find his meaning where he does and believe what he wants to about the period after his death. As long as he does not legislate from there, or actually live by the horrific laws of the bible including killing for breaking commandments and other infractions, and it seems he does not, it is his business.
>>You seem to fail to understand that not everyone requires
>>a belief structure such as your own.
Oh no, I fully understand that. Some require a belief system such as yours. And, make no mistake about it, it as BELIEF system. And clearly, at least for you, one you will defend to the death.
Just give it up, dude. You are worshipping at the altar of atheism. You can deny it, but you’re not convincing anyone.
>>By your reckoning, if you don’t “believe” that purple leprechauns..exist
No, that’s YOUR reckoning, and it’s dead wrong.
Those who believe that God exists are THEists.
Those who believe that God does not exist are aTHEists.
Those who aren’t sure are agnostics.
The key phoneme here is “THE”. You know, from the Greek “THEOS”, or god? Unless you’re talking about purple leprechauns, hobbits, etc. as gods, belief or disbelief in them has nothing to do with your theistic status.
Your continued harping that you “don’t believe in a religion” is somewhat peculiar. Is it really that frightening for you to suspend the denial you are in, and realize that, in many ways, you’re just like Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, or Jerry Falwell? I’d even go so far as to say that you are an atheistic evangelists.
Don’t worry, even if you’re not the naughty, devil-may-care, rebel without a God that you thought you were, you’re still OK. I’m OK. Remember, we’re all God’s children!
#71
Agreed. It’s clear that some people are just not ready to come to grips with the idea of life without a deity. Further, it is clear that the difference between belief and absence of belief is one that some people are simply incapable of comprehending whether because of mental acumen or years of mental conditioning.
>>Further, it is clear that the difference between belief and
>>absence of belief is one that some people are simply
>>incapable of comprehending whether because of mental
>>acumen or years of mental conditioning.
Heh. That just about says it all. You have been well indoctrinated by the Elders of the Church of Atheism, my son. Go forth and spread their gospel.
“Yes you are”
“No I’m not”
“Yes you are”
“No I’m not”
Yes you are”
“No I’m not”
“Yes you are because I said so”
“No I’m not because you can’t say so”
“Yes I can”
“No you can’t”
sssnnnooooorre
OKOKOKOKokokokok ok ok o KAY
The spectacle of M.Scott & MMM (I know, that’s Mister Mean Mister Mustard to me) at each other’s throats over this is highly reminiscent of the Lilliputians and Blefuscans going at it over their friggin’ soft-boiled eggs.
But I still back Mustard on this – although both sides are ignoring a distinction that others have come up with to resolve this atheist-or-agnostic rift…
Some have agreed to distinguish between ‘hard’ atheists and ‘soft’ atheists – some claim that there’s no effective difference between a ‘soft’ atheist and an agnostic;
Hard: Assertion of nonexistence = stating that God’s nonexistence is factual. Without supporting evidence, it is reduced to a mere unfounded belief, exactly as is belief in God’s existence.
Soft: Nonassertion of existence = NOT stating God exists or doesn’t exist. Requires no evidence, since it is a default tautology: “God exists OR God doesn’t exist.” That is NOT a belief.
To say that there IS or IS NOT a God requires making a positive assertion of fact. But there is ZERO evidence to base EITHER assertion upon – therefore they are EQUALLY MATTERS OF FAITH or BELIEF. You don’t have to believe ANYTHING to say “there either is or is not a God.” which is the logical equivalent of stating “either A or ~A”. It’s a null statement – you can’t believe or not believe it. It is simply so.
Big difference between saying “there is NO God” and saying “there is a possibility that God exists; however, the probability of His existence is of such an obviously astronomical low magnitude that it may be safely assumed to be nonexistent.”
Theist: 100% probability of existence – but there is no evidence.
Hard Atheist: 100% probability of nonexistence – but there is no evidence.
then the ones who apply the scientific method;
Agnostic: Existence or nonexistence cannot be determined from currently available evidence.
and then the ones who apply both the scientific method AND knowledge of relative probabilities:
Soft Atheist: The probability of existence is between zero and a number sufficiently miniscule as to be effectively zero. Therefore we may act with complete safety and confidence as though that probability IS zero.
Santa could exist. The FSM could exist. Peter Pan could exist. But we all are willing to round off that 0.000000000000000001% chance to 0.0%. Right? So if the odds of God existing are similar to the odds of any of those others, then belief in God is as insane and / or idiotic as believing in any of the others. And since the exact same amount of evidence exists to suggest the existence of the Xian God as for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, i.e. ZERO, then the probabilities of their actual existence are quite similar in value, if not exactly identical. NO FSM = NO GOD. But you do the math…
Now I plan to sit back, pour some Cointreau over a bowl of Cherry Garcia, and peruse the vain attempts at rebuttal…. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA……..
#77 – you’re all wrong
>>Santa could exist. The FSM could exist. Peter Pan could exist. But we
>>all are willing to round off that 0.000000000000000001% chance to >>0.0%. Right? So if the odds of God existing are similar to the odds of
>>any of those others, then belief in God is as insane and / or idiotic as
>>believing in any of the others.
Interest concept, Fish Monger, but your “you do the math” statement is your downfall.
Virtually nobody over the age of 6 believes in Peter Pan, the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, or Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reinder. Reliable estimates put the percentage of people who believe in God as > 85% worldwide, higher in the USA.
Kind of peculiar, isn’t it? A couple of fruitcakes here and there could be dismissed as the result of mental defect or disease. On the other hand, 85% of the world’s population is a fuck of a lot of people.
Maybe the atheists are right, and just about everybody else in the world is wrong. Heh heh heh. Ah, the power of faith. Albert Einstein believed in God, but the atheists are smarter than that.
Gotta love the Religion of Atheism. So little proof, such strong belief.
#79 – MM,
Sorry, your math is now your own downfall. The position you take can be refuted easily with the simple, though slightly vulgar, analogy:
Eat shit. A billion flies can’t all be wrong.
The number of people that believe a wacko hypothesis does not increase its truth one iota.
Last numbers I heard by the way were about 800 million for the various flavors of nontheism, putting it just behind Christianity and Islam at 1.9 billion and 1.2 billion, respectively, world wide.
And to your post #73, where you said:
No, that’s YOUR reckoning, and it’s dead wrong.
Those who believe that God exists are THEists.
Those who believe that God does not exist are aTHEists.
Those who aren’t sure are agnostics.
You are incorrect yet again and refuse to read even the simplest of books on the subject, try a damn dictionary.
Those who believe that God exists are THEists.
Those who either believe that God does not exist OR DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GOD DOES EXIST are aTHEists.
Those who aren’t sure are agnostics.
I know such subtlety is difficult for someone capable of believing that a god that would damn someone to hell for eternity is all forgiving, but there really is a difference.
Scottie, I think it’s time you beamed back up to the Enterprise.
The figures I cited were for people WHO BELIEVE IN GOD, not dues-paying members of some Ted Haggard megachurch.
Since you’re such a proponent of the downtrodden minority viewpoint, I’ll bet you think that NAMBLA is just great! Do you belong that that organization? Just because most people don’t think it’s a good idea for old guys to be fucking young boys doesn’t mean that YOU are wrong!
And as to your relentless nitpicking over “believe God does not exist” vs. “do not believe God exists”, pffft. If you “don’t believe” it, but do not believe that He does not exist”, then you’re not sure. You can call yourself whatever you want. I am addressing my comments to those who berate believers, calling them mentally inferior, because they are sure that GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
And that, Grasshopper, is a religion.
Sorry if that puts a dent in your James Dean-like vision of yourself.
MM – No I don’t belong to Ted Haggard’s NAMBLA. But, since you place such a high importance on opinions of the masses, you should be aware that your definition of atheism puts you squarely in a minority viewpoint. Dictionaries, remember, are descriptive, not proscriptive. They report the ways in which a word is used. You just refuse to be bound by such nit-picking. So kjlh, iuy, and rtyew, which obviously means that we’ll have to agree to disagree, given that I’ve just defined those words to mean that.
Mr. Peabody, set the Wayback Machine to 1500, so we can go back to a time when the sun actually DID revolve around the Earth, because 100% of the people believed it…
#84 – Lauren,
As long as we’re hypothesizing time travel, you pick your time, I’ll pick mine. I’m going back over 200,000 years to see what the world was like before H. Sapiens ruined everything. Don’t worry, I’ll take only photos and leave only footprints. Or, maybe I’ll use a hoverboard (if Mr. Fusion will lend me one) and avoid even leaving the footprints.
Reading Ray Bradbury‘ll poison your mind, son…
…but one day here, we’re gonna get into it, you and me, over this bizarre “humans are fucking up nature” crap. And it won’t be pretty. Human are every atom as natural as everything else on the planet – and we are certainly not the only species that only acts in it’s own self-interest or does things that negatively impact other life. We should avoid doing so, but doing so only places us on the same moral plane as nonsentient species, it doesn’t make us monsters, it makes us stupid and shortsighted.
#81
> And as to your relentless nitpicking over “believe God does
> not exist” vs. “do not believe God exists”, pffft. If you
> “don’t believe” it, but do not believe that He does not
> exist”, then you’re not sure
Ahahaha….Wow. Just…wow…Who knew the shoe leather could go down that far. You remind of some ditsy blond that once told me, “Multiple. Divide. What’s the difference?”
There is HUGE difference between “I believe god does not exist” and “I do not believe god [does] exists.” which is *exactly* why you are incapable of understanding why atheism is not a religion. The former is stating that I know for a fact that the thing does not exist. I refute the statement that such a thing exists. In other words, the former is declaring a conclusion whereas the later is refuting the veracity of a statement.
I get the impression that the only reason you think (want) to make atheism a religion and not say the group of people that do not believe in purple leprechauns is that one has a term to describe it and the other does not.
That middle statement should read:
The former is stating that I know for a fact that the thing does not exist whereas the later is stating that I refute the statement that such a thing exists.